A look back at the partition

[Prem]

http://www.radioopensource.org/vazira/
India-Pakistan: Vazira Zamindar on the raw wound of Partition

Vazira Zamindar is filling in a critical back story of fury and fear in our world, The Long Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 and after. It was one of the great post-colonial wounds, and it keeps on wounding, visibly and invisibly. Partition has been the root of endless public miseries: ethnic cleansing, chronic warfare, constructed “national” and religious hatreds. It’s also, as Professor Zamindar testifies for herself, “a wound within.” It’s the mother of many millions of individual identity crises that seem never to go away. I would argue that in 1947, it was still unclear how these two entities called India and Pakistan would inscribe themselves as two nation-states. I think it is the following decade that’s quite decisive, and one could say it’s still an ongoing process of creating this distinction: the need to constantly articulate this distinction, through hostilities, through enmity, through making the border between these two states almost impossible for citizens of the region to cross.
There is a line on the ground that disappears very quickly when people cross it.
Vazira Zamindar in conversation with Chris Lydon at Brown, January 31, 2011.
We are talking about the many reasons Partition will not and cannot be reconsidered today. But the fact that people keep reflecting on the question marks the spot, Vazira Zamindar says, to begin “a critique of the present… I want to hold onto that question as a sign that people can still imagine a multi-religious society. It’s a sign that people are fed up with our terribly divided present, that they don’t want these wars. They don’t want conflict

[Brad Goodman]

'Ranjeet Singh's rise led to creation of Pakistan'

CHANDIGARH: Maharaja Ranjeet Singh's rise was one of the factors for creation of Pakistan, which was a product of Muslims' fear after the fall of Mughal Empire. This was disclosed here on Sunday by the author of the recently released book, 'Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan', MJ Akbar, while talking to the intelligentsia of the city, which he rates high in intellectual circles.

Akbar quoted a Taliban commander saying, 'Jihad is not very recent, we have been fighting for 200 years', indicating the regime of Ranjeet Singh that stretched up to Afghanistan.

Pakistan was a product of the fear of Muslims, who could not forget the glory of Mughals and 500 years of their rule over India. The author said due to the accommodative culture of Punjab, which had Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, the Muslim League had to taste defeat, but the same region became the bloodiest place when Pakistan's founder Mohmmed Ali Jinnah exploited these fears.

Akbar said his book quotes letters of Jinnah to Muslim clerics of Punjab expressing fear for community, which earlier gave just 10% votes in the 1936 election and supported a pro-peasant and secular Unionist party with 101 seats out of a total of 175 seats in the Punjab assembly. The Muslim League won just two seats and Akalis won only 10 seats. Akbar accepted the role of the Unionist Party when an IAS officer HIS Garewal pointed it out showing a gazette notification of the election. The author said Mahatma Gandhi was so sure of Punjab's cultural harmony that he chose to stay put in East Bengal to stop any communal flare up. Because of his influence there was no communal violence in the region in the East. Gandhi miscalculated the scene in Punjab, vitiated after Jinnah turned communal from secular, when he rejected a separate vote for Muslims in 1936 polls.

'Creation of Pakistan was the most stupid decision a section of Muslims could have taken for even the growth of the community,' he said. He explained that due to fear factor, Pakistanis behave in the manner they do at the negotiations with India.

Expressing happiness over the developments unfolding in the world with Gandhian non-violent protest becoming a tool in the recent Arab world uprisings, he said the ideology of India was stronger and that of Pakistan self-defeating.

When asked how to deal with Pakistan, he said there was no answer to this. 'One of the lessons that we can learn from this is how America dealt with the Communist Soviet Union, they economically isolated USSR for the Left ideology to die its own death. We can leave Pakistan in the same state, but as we share borders, this option may not be viable,' he remarked.

Former Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh said Pakistan seems to have become a hopeless case since the Islamization of Army in Pakistan during the period of General Zia Ul Haq.

[Abhi_G]

So talibani opinion now counts as legitimate - of course I forgot this is secular India which should be prefectly all right with any amount of savagery of invading hordes - rather messengers of "civilization".

M J Akbar of late seems to be missing the aurangzebi rule! Abdali's depradations are nothing since they were aimed at Hindus and Sikhs.

And thanks to toilet paper for informing us of the real reason behind pakistan ranging from RSS, Savarkar and now Maharaja Ranjit Singh...just great!

[Prem]

Now we know Congress and Pakistani Nazariya have convergence of interest in their dealing with Hindus and Sikh population. BTW, MRS was the onlee indingenous ruler of the area in almost 500 years .

[Abhi_G]

On the same book by MJ Akbar.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/315674/Not- ... -show.html

Prafull Goradia and KR Phanda wonder why MJ Akbar, while dealing with the creation of Pakistan, ignores the separatist tendencies inherent in Islam

The book under review is a masterly exposition by a journalist distinguished for his knowledge. He is also perceived to be objective in his views on communal issues. With his high credibility, he has tried to put the weight of the blame for Partition on the Congress, especially Jawaharlal Nehru. By implication, he has attempted to free Indian Muslims of all responsibility. If he has blamed any Muslim, it is Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

Like other Muslim authors of the past, MJ Akbar’s book, Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan, puts the entire blame for Partition on the Congress leadership. Akbar writes: “There were five swivel moments in the relations between the Congress and the Muslims before the formation of Pakistan. The pact negotiated by Jinnah in 1916, in which the Congress accepted separate electorates, was widely described as the basis on which the two communities could unite against the British. The second moment, Gandhi’s Khilafat struggle, promised liberation but ended in despair. Jinnah crafted the third opportunity, in 1927 and 1928, when an all-party effort was made to create a constitution for India by Indians; he failed to bridge the League-Congress gap. In 1937, the two parties could have cemented an ongoing understanding with a post-election coalition, but an ascendant Congress underestimated the potential of a disappointed Jinnah. The fifth and the most tantalising chance appeared at the very last minute, in 1946, when the Congress and the League accepted the British Cabinet Mission Plan to retain a united India, but the Congress, fearful of balkanisation, reversed its decision. After this, their separate paths became irreversible.”

The fact is that Jinnah did not lead, but was led by the Muslim consensus. His role was that of a sincere and clear-headed lawyer who could formulate and articulate in precise terms what his client really wanted (Studies in Islamic Culture by Aziz Ahmad). This is further reinforced by the election results of 1945-46. Prof M Mujeeb writes: “The party which demanded the creation of Pakistan, a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, was the Muslim League. In the elections held early in 1946, which proved decisive, it secured 425 out of 492 seats reserved for Muslims in the central and different provincial legislatures. It could be said, therefore, that Muslims were overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan. It insisted that the right to a separate homeland should be conceded first (Islamic Influence on Indian Society).

Partition, therefore, took place because Indian Muslims felt themselves to be Muslims first and Indians later. Given this background leading to the creation of Pakistan, it is surprising that the Congress leadership — Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel — did not ask Muslims to leave for their dar-ul-Islam. Jinnah, on the contrary, was clear. He along with other seven League leaders had asked for an exchange of population. The Congress did not agree. It seems the Indian leadership deluded itself that Partition was territorial and not a religious division!

[svinayak]

Like other Muslim authors of the past, MJ Akbar’s book, Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan, puts the entire blame for Partition on the Congress leadership. Akbar writes: “There were five swivel moments in the relations between the Congress and the Muslims before the formation of Pakistan. The pact negotiated by Jinnah in 1916, in which the Congress accepted separate electorates, was widely described as the basis on which the two communities could unite against the British. The second moment, Gandhi’s Khilafat struggle, promised liberation but ended in despair. Jinnah crafted the third opportunity, in 1927 and 1928, when an all-party effort was made to create a constitution for India by Indians; he failed to bridge the League-Congress gap. In 1937, the two parties could have cemented an ongoing understanding with a post-election coalition, but an ascendant Congress underestimated the potential of a disappointed Jinnah. The fifth and the most tantalising chance appeared at the very last minute, in 1946, when the Congress and the League accepted the British Cabinet Mission Plan to retain a united India, but the Congress, fearful of balkanisation, reversed its decision. After this, their separate paths became irreversible.”

He fails to mention that from 1900 the British were in secret support of the ML. The Bengal Partition of 1905 was done by the British authorities to get the support of the muslims and birth of the Muslim league.
So this entire Congress and Muslim League interaction was a show which was being gamed by British under Churchill.

When the British announced the shift in the Capital in 1911 from Calcutta to New Delhi the League made a campaign to list Jinnah and Iqbal into their ideology. It was sign that now with the British support they would get a region which included Delhi, Agra and Lucknow as part of their land. This was the real plan.

Iqbal encouraged the creation of a "state in northwestern India for Muslims" in his 1930 presidential address
The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam is a compilation of lectures delivered by Muhammad Iqbal on Islamic philosophy; it was published in 1930. These lectures were delivered by Iqbal in Madras, Hyderabad, and Aligarh. The last chapter, "Is Religion Possible", was added to the book from the 1934 Oxford Edition onwards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Recons ... t_in_Islam
See how Iqbal woke up and started in a series to reconstruct the religious thought on in 1930 onwards until his death in 1938.

In 1946 Jinnah for his direct action plan Jinnah did it because he knew the support from the British. The money from industrialists and wealthy were together in this and they took the chance to create Pakistan.

So this blaming Gandhi and other are after the fact when secret plans were going on between League and the British govt and specifically the racist Churchill who despised Indians/Hindus. This was before even Gandhi came to the picture as the leader of the INC in 1920.

The fact is that Jinnah did not lead, but was led by the Muslim consensus. His role was that of a sincere and clear-headed lawyer who could formulate and articulate in precise terms what his client really wanted (Studies in Islamic Culture by Aziz Ahmad). This is further reinforced by the election results of 1945-46. Prof M Mujeeb writes: “The party which demanded the creation of Pakistan, a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, was the Muslim League. In the elections held early in 1946, which proved decisive, it secured 425 out of 492 seats reserved for Muslims in the central and different provincial legislatures. It could be said, therefore, that Muslims were overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan. It insisted that the right to a separate homeland should be conceded first (Islamic Influence on Indian Society).

They wanted to create a force of history for the muslims in the sub continent and Jinnah was sold to that since it gave him powers in the new setup.

Partition, therefore, took place because Indian Muslims felt themselves to be Muslims first and Indians later. Given this background leading to the creation of Pakistan, it is surprising that the Congress leadership — Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel — did not ask Muslims to leave for their dar-ul-Islam. Jinnah, on the contrary, was clear. He along with other seven League leaders had asked for an exchange of population. The Congress did not agree. It seems the Indian leadership deluded itself that Partition was territorial and not a religious division!

Now the authors are coming out that Indian muslims had nothing to do with Pakistan. Till now they could remain silent since they could give support both ways. But after seeing the condition of the failed Pakistan project there is no way they want own up to the creation of Pakistan.

[Prem]

Did Jinnah ask for the transfer of population ? Till Now Indians are told only Dr. Amdedkar made such recommendation.

[Sanku]

@MJA -- well considering if anything less than Mughal rule unnerves IMs (his pov) -- he is indirectly saying that he wants a group of Turko-Mongols to lord over the rest and if it is disturbed IMs will rise up.

I think it tells us more about the elite in IM community like Akbar rather than the actual people on whose name such propaganda is being unleashed.

[svinayak]

'Ranjeet Singh's rise led to creation of Pakistan'

CHANDIGARH: Maharaja Ranjeet Singh's rise was one of the factors for creation of Pakistan, which was a product of Muslims' fear after the fall of Mughal Empire. This was disclosed here on Sunday by the author of the recently released book, 'Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan', MJ Akbar, while talking to the intelligentsia of the city, which he rates high in intellectual circles.

Akbar quoted a Taliban commander saying, 'Jihad is not very recent, we have been fighting for 200 years', indicating the regime of Ranjeet Singh that stretched up to Afghanistan.

Pakistan was a product of the fear of Muslims, who could not forget the glory of Mughals and 500 years of their rule over India. He explained that due to fear factor, Pakistanis behave in the manner they do at the negotiations with India.

What is interesting is that After 1900 the British were the active supporters of the muslims in general as a bull work against the massive non muslim population and Muslim league had support from the British. The fears of the Muslim league was exploited by the British and this factor is more than all the other factors including the Maharaja Ranjeet Singh rule 200 years ago.

[brihaspati]

We should consider that one school of opinion from non-Muslim background by birth, thinks that M.J.Akbar's views are very "perceptive". So it could be that what Akbar is saying is shared by some among the above non-IM Indians. Now who among the non-Muslims of India would be scared of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh ji, or be jealous of what he achieved? Whose power within India does this icon of resistance against then Muslim regimes/Mughals in the North West threaten?

[Prem]

The onlee conclusion i can draw is that mission of Maharaj Ranjit Singh is unfulfilled and its about time Indians resume their efforts on war footing to start where he left off. Such strategic mission requires strategic decision using strategic methods and instruments to back the policy all the way to the hill. If Congress have any sanity left , they can still prove Ranjit Singh or Manmohan Singh, one and the same Thing/=King . MMS can his name and legacy engraved in Gold equal to Maharaja. is he up to the task?

[abhishek_sharma]

http://www.hindu.com/lr/2006/06/04/stor ... 110300.htm

Beginning with Gilgamesh, the narration proliferates, spanning several centuries of known history with Time and Space as the main characters: Other characters turn out to be rivers and dates like 1947, sharing space along with real and imaginary historic characters. Open the book at random and you are sure to find one shocking revelation or the other, tearing the mask off established history, or bringing to spotlight what has been dimmed or blurred through usage or prejudice. For instance, every Muslim-baiter in this country would harp on the theme of Muslim marauders like Chengiz Khan, Timur and Babur laying waste our motherland. But Chengiz Khan was not even a Muslim. He was a Mongol idol worshipper! Though this is known to historians, the layman has to be sensitised to this fact.

Another incident involves Aurangazeb's sacking of Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Kamleshwar borrows the authority of Pattabhi Sitaramaiah, President of Indian National Congress (1938) to assert that Aurangazeb did what he did to retrieve the wife of one of the Hindu Rajahs in his entourage who had visited the temple and whom some of the priests there had abducted and raped! Scores of such instances crop up in the book.

Comments? Is this accurate?

[svinayak]

assert that Aurangazeb did what he did to retrieve the wife of one of the Hindu Rajahs in his entourage who had visited the temple and whom some of the priests there had abducted and raped! Scores of such instances crop up in the book[/b].

Comments? Is this accurate?

The questions is why does a Badshah wage a major war to retrieve a few people. Does it make sense

[brihaspati]

The bit about Aurangzeb is OT, but since this is an often repeated quote - here is the original source from Pattavi Sitaramayiah: from which everyone else has quoted this as a fact of "history". I don't have the book with me now, so am quoting Elst. But the copy is at my home library in desh, and I had read it once, and I remember that this was how the story was actually outlined in the book.

Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, "The Feathers and the Stones" : [from http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/arti ... anath.html ]

"There is a popular belief that Aurangazeb was a bigot in religion. This, however, is combated by a certain school. His bigotry is illustrated by one or two instances. The building of a mosque over the site of the original Kasi Visveswara Temple is one such. A like mosque in Mathura is another. The revival of Jazia is a third but of a different order. A story is told in extenuation of the first event.

"In the height of his glory, Aurangazeb like any foreign king in a country, had in his entourage a number of Hindu nobles. They all set out one day to see the sacred temple of Benares. Amongst them was a Ranee of Cutch. When the party returned after visiting the Temple, the Ranee of Cutch was missing. They searched for her in and out, East, North, West and South but no trace of her was noticeable. At last, a more diligent search revealed a Tah Khana or an underground storey of the temple which to all appearances had only two storeys. When the passage to it was found barred, they broke open the doors and found inside the pale shadow of the Ranee bereft of her jewellery.

"It turned out that the Mahants were in the habit of picking out wealthy and bejewelled pilgrims and in guiding them to see the temple, decoying them to the underground cellar and robbing them of their jewellery. What exactly would have happened to their life one did not know. Anyhow in this case, there was no time for mischief as the search was diligent and prompt. On discovering the wickedness of the priests, Aurangazeb declared that such a scene of robbery could not be the House of God and ordered it to be forthwith demolished. And the ruins were left there.

"But the Ranee who was thus saved insisted on a Musjid being built on the ruined and to please her, one was subsequently built. That is how a Musjid has come to exist by the side of the Kasi Visweswar temple which is no temple in the real sense of the term but a humble cottage in which the marble Siva Linga is housed. Nothing is known about the Mathura Temple.

"This story of the Benares Musjid was given in a rare manuscript in Lucknow which was in the possession of a respected Mulla who had read it in the Ms. and who though he promised to look it up and give the Ms. to a friend, to whom he had narrated the story, died without fulfilling his promise. The story is little known and the prejudice, we are told, against Aurangazeb persists."

People are surprised at such stories - but my bolded part is very very common in Islamists narratives, anyone who is familiar with the Islamic narratives will find the same pattern - where dialogues/words/statements are put in "Hindu" mouths justifying/wanting/demanding atrocities on themselves/their culture/icons etc.

People should be prepared to see derisive smileys from the lovers [Masochistic?] of Aurangzeb dismissing Elst as a valid voice so that whatever he quotes from books or else also become dismissable. Those in desh should look out for Sitaramaiah's works - which are wonderful exercises in hagiographies of the usual suspects. It does not matter who quotes from Pattavi Sitaramayiah - but what Pattavi writes should matter.

So do note that no documentary evidence exists except Sitaramaiah's hearsay. Aurangzeb's firman actually exists which states nothing about "ranees". What is claimed also in the hearsay is a supposed story from a "mullah", with no verifiable traces. But if this is highlighted too much we may actually suddenly see the appearnce of such a manuscript - which will be found to be authentic by "eminent historians" and even its scientific dating or testing for forgeries will be done by reliable experts. If the experts find such a MS a forgery then they will be found to have been politically motivated with a saffron-fascist secret affiliation.

[Frederic]

Brihaspatiji,

You beat me to the punch.
I was just about to quote the very article from Elst's webpage.

The sad part is the following:
"So now, we finally know where the story comes from: an unnamed mullah friend of an unnamed acquaintance of Sitaram ayya's knew of a manuscript, the details of which he took with him in his grave. This is the "document" on which secularist journalists and historians base their "evidence" of Aurangzeb's fair and secularist disposition, overruling the evidence of archaeology and the cold print of the Maasiri Alamgiri, to "explode the myth" of Islamic iconoclasm spread by the "chauvinist" Hindutva propagandists. Now you just try to imagine what the secularists and their mouthpieces in Western academe would say if Hindus offered evidence of this quality."

And the secularist mahapurushlog will have us believe that evidence about the bigot Aurangzeb is all "propaganda" onlee! How very convenient!

I see the "truth by repeated assertion" technique unfolding right in front of my eyes.

Just wait. Now that this fiction about Aurangzeb's "tolerance" has gained mainstream blessing through the Hindu article, expect the S. Varadharajans, the Ramachandra Guhas, the Sugata Boses of this world quoting this ad nauseum. All pointers go back to the venerable sirjee Pattabhiramaiah of course. And we all know where Pattabhiramaiah sirjee got this from! It is a null pointer stuck firmly into a big huge void.

Best
Fred

[brihaspati]

Sorry Frederic ji!
[To have deprived you of the pleasure!]
I had to face this question when I gave a "small" talk previous week in an area I do not normally deal with. At one stage I spoke of strategies employed by people with contradictory positions on things and gave the "eminent historian"'s example. Immediately a PIO stood up and challenged me with exactly the two examples I would have loved - Prof Romila Thapars brilliant academic hypocrisy on Somnath and Pande's claim on Viswanath and Aurangzeb. The audience broke out into a wide smile when I quoted the exact passages. The PIO shouted out "Hindu fascist" and left in a huff. The truth is getting out there slowly - in fact I was even queried on the "professional attitudes" about the narrative on KP and Kashmir. People out in the west at the academic level are slowly also exploring the alternative side - albeit silently and quietly. I have been doing my own bit quietly for almost 7 years now.

You will see much greater bitterness from PIO's in western uni's now against the fascist menace - partly because in spite of tight and selective control over who gets to speak or even question in meets - they are increasingly facing the oddball questions.

[brihaspati]

Last OT about Aurangzeb : here are some of the firmans available from those preserved at Bikaner. Th one on Viswanath is exhibit 11 in the list : http://www.aurangzeb.info/ Here also no mention of any Ranee. Maasiri Alamgiri is availablein translation on the Packhum/Persian site, has no mention of the story. In fact none of contemporary chronicles even hint of such a story.

[Frederic]

A bit OT.
I had always dreamt of a university, not far from JNU, let us call it Sardar Vallabhai University.
Said uty to have language and history departments that specialize in
*Medieval Persian
*Medieval Turkish
*Medieval Arabic.
*Ancient and Medieval Sanskrit

Conduct a no-holds barred uber-seminar. Invite all and sundry (the Romila Thapars, the Guhas et al).
Cut their nose in public.
Publish results of the said debate.
Compile an officially approved dictionary for the above three languages.
And finally translate all of the "masterpieces" of the epochs in question, BaburNama, Alamgiri etc

No more chances for obfuscation and "selective quoting" hain jee?

Brihaspatiji, I recall you pointing out a while back the sly "partial quoting" of Romila Thapar about a Medieval inscription.

If I recall right, people have even called her basic Sanskrit knowledge into question.


Best Regards
Fred

[abhishek_sharma]

I do not understand why such a book (the original Hindi version) got Sahitya Akademi Award.

Anyway, I don't intend to read it any more. It will be back in library.

P.S.: I posted it here because the book is tilted "Partitions". Sorry for the OT.

[Abhi_G]

Btw, Pattabhi Sitaramaiyya was the same fellow who was defeated by Netaji Subhash Bose in the 1939 Tripuri INC presidential elections causing great takleef to Gandhi (along with JLN and Sardar) leading to the eventual and fateful ouster and exile of the true patriot.....

[ramana]

I don't understand the Pakistani hankering about the glories of Mughals. the areas of modern day Pakistan are the remanants of the Turco-Afghan-Persian invaders who conquered and settled in those lands.

They were overthrown by the Mughals who reduced them to vassal state and extracted tribute. In fact Second Battle of Panipat, the Hindus and Pathans fought against the Mughals or Chagtai Turks. Rana Sanga had Pathan allies against Mughals.

Even in the Third battle of Panipat it was Maratha and Pathans who fought against the Afghans and Persians. So what glory of Chagatai Turks are these Pakis imagining/seeking to restore? They are not the succesor people to Mughals. besides in 1857 it was teh Marathas that proclaimed Bahdhur Shah Zafar as the Emperor while these guys immediate ancestors were taking hookha panni from EIC with opium and did not support the Badshah.


They are namak haram to their ancestors!

[svinayak]

In fact Second Battle of Panipat, the Hindus and Pathans fought against the Mughals or Chagtai Turks. Rana Sanga had Pathan allies against Mughals.

Even in the Third battle of Panipat it was Maratha and Pathans who fought against the Afghans and Persians.
They are namak haram to their ancestors!

They are creating new social identity and nation based identity. This is a long term project to change the sub continental racial and ethnic identity over few hundred years.

[ramana]

But things built on falsity will unravel faster than the time it takes to build it.

[svinayak]

But things built on falsity will unravel faster than the time it takes to build it.

This is the dominance of the west for the last 200 years. They want to keep this for the next 400-500 years
THis needs to be reversed and their ability to create new identities and new nations have to be stopped. That is true freedom

[Airavat]

And even after Hari Singh offered accession in September Mr. Nehru refused to accept!!! As Mehr Chand Mahajan records in Looking Back:

"In Delhi in company with Sardar Baldev Singh, the Defence Minister, I saw Sardar Patel the Home Minister on 19th September.....I also met Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, and I told him the terms on which the Maharaja wanted me to negotiate with India. The Maharaja was willing to accede to India and also to introduce necessary reforms in the administration of the State. He, however wanted the question of administrative reforms to be taken up later on. Panditji wanted an immediate change in the internal administration of the State and he felt somewhat annoyed when I conveyed to him the Maharaja's views."

This decision of Nehru gave the opening to Pakistan for stepping up its infiltration in Jammu, the coup in Gilgit, and the invasion of Kashmir. Countless Hindus and Sikhs in Jammu lost their lives thanks to our first prime minister.

Reading through this biography of Mr. Mahajan, it seems he also served on the Boundary Commission which was tasked to recommend the contours of the partition line between India and Pakistan. He has recorded some interesting anecdotes from that episode:

"As a judge I held the view that the natural boundary between India and Pakistan was along the River Ravi and I suggested its adoption. Lord Radcliffe's secretary asked me whether I would be willing to treat the town of Qadian as neutral territory if the town of Nankana was similarly treated. I had personally no objection to this course. It was not however acceptable to some of my colleagues..........

..I myself did not know what the award of Lord Radcliffe would be but I had some hope on the basis of the talks and arguments that I had with him for a whole day that Lahore might remain in India. But while we were discussing the award at the hotel, Lord Radcliffe had once exclaimed, "How can you have both Calcutta and Lahore? What can I give to Pakistan?" I protested against this non-judicial observation. Thereafter throughout our talks he seemed to agree to most of my arguments when I urged that Lahore should be included in India and not in Pakistan. This was probably done in order to remove my earlier impression."

[ramana]

Brihaspatiji< What do you know aboutTarak Nath Das?

He also wrote a book "Indian in World Politics" in the 1930s.

Tarak was among those who suffered emotionally from the Partition of India in 1947 and vehemently opposed the process of balkanisation of South Asia till his last day. After forty-six years in exile, he revisited his motherland in 1952, as a Visiting Professor of the Watumull Foundation. He founded the Vivekananda Society in Calcutta. On 9 September 1952, he presided over the public meeting to celebrate the 37th anniversary of Bagha Jatin’s heroic martyrdom, urging the youth to revive the values upheld by his mentor, Jatindâ.[8] He died upon return to the United States on 22 December 1958, aged 74.

Uty of Washington Seattle archives:

Tarak Nath Das

In 1923, Das and other naturalized citizens from India were disenfranchised when the Supreme Court ruled they were not “white”, voiding all previously granted citizenship. Two years later Das received the first Ph.D. from the School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University. Abandoning his earlier revolutionary stance, Das spent the rest of his years teaching in the U.S. and Europe. He and his wife, Mary Keatinge Morse, a founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Woman’s Party , established the Taraknath Das Foundation in 1935 to promote educational and cultural activities between nations. Eleven years later, in 1946, Das saw his citizenship restored when the U.S. once again permitted Indian-born immigrants to be naturalized.

The joy occasioned by India’s independence in 1947 was considerably muted for Das on account of the resulting partition between the predominantly Hindu and Muslim territories of India and Pakistan. The exile finally returned to his motherland in 1952 and was greeted by large crowds and front-page newspaper coverage. Taraknath Das died in December, 1958 in New York.2

[surinder]

Regarding Lahore:

Most PUnjabis consider this to be an unfair and extremely biased action on part of the British. The city of Lahore was dominated by Hindus/Sikhs. They had all the property and buildings and insititutions cornered. The district itself was almost 50-50 split between Sikhs/Hindus and Muslims. Lahore city was clearly Hindu/Sikh majority.

Lahore was the pulse of Punjab and the core of its identity. It was the most happening place, and the center of attention of all rulers---Sikhs, Afghan, Mughal, British.

However, the British were rooting for the Pakis. They realized that Pakistan really had no city worth its name for them. So to strengthen them, the British had long decided in favor of giving Lahore to TSP. This was a forgone conclusion in their minds. They juust never told anyone, until the last moment. Up until the last moment, Hindus/Sikhs refused to beleive that Lahore will go to TSP. They hung on, and then were slaughtered mercilessly (with the British as mute inactive witness, giving behind the scene encouragement to the Muslim mobs).

Incidently, My grandfather had a house in Lahore, which was left behind.

Partition is sheer mendacity, and the gift of Lahore to TSP is the crowning glory of that mendacity.

Overnight, the huge havelis, mansions, universitied, hospitals, schools, went from Hindu/Sikh control to Muslim control. This was a city where Hindu/Sikh philanthropy had made poured their heart and soul to make a great place. Khalsa Colleges became Islamia colleges overnight. Overnight the poor, hungry, vicous muslims took over the vast properties left behind. Old debts were erased, and new millionaires created overnight. If there ever was needed a domonstration of Maal-e-ghanimat concept, it was here in the looted real estate of Lahore.

Lahore, at all costs, should revert back to India. The City established by the son of Lord Rama has to come back to India.

[rkirankr]

^ It is a pity we were not able to capture it in 1965. That would have been as humiliating to pakis as splitting of Bangladesh

[surinder]

We had reached the outskirts and gotten damn close to the city, holding some parts of it by the time the war ended. But we returned it (along with that important pass in the mountains of J&K). We should have kept it, and annexed it.

Pakjabis value Lahore very intensely. They have put tremenous resources to secure it. One is the well-known Ichhogil canal around the city as a moat.

By not solving it in the first place, we made the problem much harder.

Even in 1947, we should have refused to accept the Radcliffe line. If TSP can claim J&K to be disputed, we can claim lahore and other border areas to be disputed.

[SBajwa]

We should consider that one school of opinion from non-Muslim background by birth, thinks that M.J.Akbar's views are very "perceptive". So it could be that what Akbar is saying is shared by some among the above non-IM Indians. Now who among the non-Muslims of India would be scared of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh ji, or be jealous of what he achieved? Whose power within India does this icon of resistance against then Muslim regimes/Mughals in the North West threaten?

Maharaja Ranjit Singh among non-muslims is a hero off course but not that much of a hero as Akali Phula Singh or Hari Singh nalwa (both Ranjit Singh's generals). Because Ranjit Singh was "Secular" and protected Muslims from the then rulers (who were non-muslims).

Ranjit Singh married many muslim women and for this reason he was made "Tankhaiyaa" i.e. "not a Sikh of a Guru" couple of times and Sikhs forgave him.

Ranjit Singh protected the mosques of the muslims and participated in EID, Muharram and other festivals!

Khalsa army's commander for Artillery division was always a Muslim (Mian Ghausa, etc) as Ranjit Singh dictated.

Ranjit Singh did nothing whatsoever at all to avenge the murders, raping, conversion of millions of people of Punjab, Kashmir and rest of India against Muslims or Mughals is reason to believe that he was more of a politician who wanted to "rule" and ruled for 50 years (before british took over after his death) by keeping all parties happy!!

But!!! under his rule people did avenged and showed Pakjabis their real place! whom they have forgotten since 1947 and need another Nalwa to remind them their place. MMS is not NALWA!!! NALWA was named Nalwa because he cloved (meaning he cut the head of a tiger with a dagger) a live tiger to save Ranjit Singh and thuse arose to become commander of the "Sher-Dil Regiment" of the Khalsa army that was ruling the area of current Rawalpindi to the Khyber. and the areas beyond khyber were paying two times a year tribute to him.

So!! Maharaja Ranjit Singh is a hero because he chose to give free run to people like Nalwa and Akali Phula Singh so that they can take the battle to the real Jihadis as oppose to Pakjabis!!

[SBajwa]

by Surinder
Incidently, My grandfather had a house in Lahore, which was left behind.

Partition is sheer mendacity, and the gift of Lahore to TSP is the crowning glory of that mendacity.

Overnight, the huge havelis, mansions, universitied, hospitals, schools, went from Hindu/Sikh control to Muslim control. This was a city where Hindu/Sikh philanthropy had made poured their heart and soul to make a great place. Khalsa Colleges became Islamia colleges overnight. Overnight the poor, hungry, vicous muslims took over the vast properties left behind. Old debts were erased, and new millionaires created overnight. If there ever was needed a domonstration of Maal-e-ghanimat concept, it was here in the looted real estate of Lahore.

Lahore, at all costs, should revert back to India. The City established by the son of Lord Rama has to come back to India.

Lahore was HEART of the secular punjab as invisioned by Hindu-sikh punjabis. Lahore got all the resources and it was "Bombay" of the rural heartland of Punjab before 1940s., meaning everybody from rural punjab wanted to see/visit/settle at Lahore's cosmopolitan culture of french/brits/etc!!! and in 1947 by giving it away to Pakjabis and then by not taking it back in 65,71, 99 only shows the flawed Gandhian mentality of "since we are good sooner or later this will come back to us". Lahore (I visited lahore in 2005) has lots of old buildings with visible non-muslim signs (these buildings are so pretty and good that even they didn't wanted to destroy them) like OM, IK OMKAR, etc in hindi/punjab all over the city. Big huge mensions. Lahore city does not have its cosmo culture at all (cosmo culture was created by Ranjit Singh in 1799 when he had British, French, American, Punjabis, UPites, Bengalis, and rest of Indians) Lahore is known as a "Cosmopolitian" city in Punjabi folklore but today's reality is opposite!!

[ramana]

Surinder I feel your pain. One of my extended family was a Principal of DAV college. My grandfather often use to travel to Lahore, Peshawar and Karachi all before partition. I don't know if you recall I said long ago there is a Punjabi in every Indian however SDRE he is!

One of my neighbors a Sikh tells me that her uncle had a mansion that he built just before Partition. I asked why did he spend so much. She said no one knew that perfidy would happen and they would put Lahore in Pakistan. BTW, her father settled in Aurangabad.
Another neighbor was born in Sialkot. He is practical and says why talk of what was lost. I say we need to so we don't lose more.

[Abhi_G]

One of my mother's aunts (we call jethi in Bangla - I think in Hindi wife of "tau") was from a Hindu Punjabi family of Lahore. Mother's uncle fell in love with this lady in the 1920s while he was working in Lahore. Story goes that great grandmother went all the way from Dhaka (Vikrampur) to Lahore to bring the bride to Bengal. Mother's uncle and aunt eventually settled in Dehradun where the aunt passed away.

[ramana]

See I told you there is Punjabi in everyone of us. Only we might have to look back a little further.

[ramana]

Stanley Wolpert - Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA | 2009-09-17 | ISBN: 0195393945 | 256 pages |

Britain's precipitous and ill-planned disengagement from India in 1947--condemned as a "shameful flight" by Winston Churchill--had a truly catastrophic effect on South Asia, leaving hundreds of thousands of people dead in its wake and creating a legacy of chaos, hatred, and war that has lasted over half a century.
Ranging from the fall of Singapore in 1942 to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, Shameful Flight provides a vivid behind-the-scenes look at Britain's decision to divest itself from the crown jewel of its empire. Stanley Wolpert, a leading authority on Indian history, paints memorable portraits of all the key participants, including Gandhi, Churchill, Attlee, Nehru, and Jinnah, with special focus on British viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten. Wolpert places the blame for the catastrophe largely on Mountbatten, the flamboyant cousin of the king, who rushed the process of nationhood along at an absurd pace. The viceroy's worst blunder was the impetuous drawing of new border lines through the middle of Punjab and Bengal. Virtually everyone involved advised Mountbatten that to partition those provinces was a calamitous mistake that would unleash uncontrollable violence. Indeed, as Wolpert shows, civil unrest among Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs escalated as Independence Day approached, and when the new boundary lines were announced, arson, murder, and mayhem erupted. Partition uprooted over ten million people, 500,000 to a million of whom died in the ensuing inferno.
Here then is the dramatic story of a truly pivotal moment in the history of India, Pakistan, and Britain, an event that ignited fires of continuing political unrest that still burn in South Asia.

[A_Gupta]

Stanley Wolpert, a leading authority on Indian history, paints memorable portraits of all the key participants, including Gandhi, Churchill, Attlee, Nehru, and Jinnah, with special focus on British viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten.

I distrust Wolpert's "memorable portraits".

e.g., (my blog): http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... ert-2.html

and (long, but full quotes included, my blog)
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... lpert.html

[Varoon Shekhar]

Blaming Mountbatten is just too easy. The real criminals had done their dirty work long before the actual partition in 1947. The building up the Moslem League, the granting to them of veto power on any matter affecting India's independence, the poisoning propaganda of the League, which made the violence almost inevitable( regardless of the partition of Punjab and Bengal), with the British looking on; the crude, crass racism of Churchill which helped to delay the independence of India, whereas it could have been free in the 1930's if not earlier; finally,the destablisation of Congress or non-League governments in Punjab, Sind and NWFP, by League goons with the British low level cadres doing almost nothing. Mountbatten is not responsible for *any* of this. Mountbatten is often derided and denounced by British "India hands" simply because he was the viceroy under which India actually achieved independence; and he tended to be sympathetic to Nehru, Gandhi and the Congress party, the first viceroy to display this. Previous viceroys, most egregiously Linlithgow, but even Wavell, were more pro-League. And of course, the British army, civil servants and media were all mentally allied with the League, against the nationalists and anti-colonialists.

[surinder]

Surinder I feel your pain. One of my extended family was a Principal of DAV college. My grandfather often use to travel to Lahore, Peshawar and Karachi all before partition. I don't know if you recall I said long ago there is a Punjabi in every Indian however SDRE he is!

Rammanna, I have to remember the lines: there is a Punjabi in every Indian .

If we as a nation can feel each others pain as our own, then we truly have a nation.

It is interesting that your grandfather (I am assuming) must have been originally based in South India, and lived in Lahore. Any memories and recollections from him of that era? How did he land up in DAV College, Lahore?

Did he like Lahore? or Punjab?

One of my neighbors a Sikh tells me that her uncle had a mansion that he built just before Partition. I asked why did he spend so much. She said no one knew that perfidy would happen and they would put Lahore in Pakistan.

...

Another neighbor was born in Sialkot. He is practical and says why talk of what was lost. I say we need to so we don't lose more.

Till the last few weeks, most Lahoris refused to beleive that they would be cleansed out. The Muslims League knew, the British knew that. They British had long ago decided that Lahore should go to Pakistan. They wanted to give Pakistan a grand beautiful city. The British knew that if they announced early on that Lahore is going to Pakistan, there might be a mutiny and civil war. So they kept it close to their chest & sprung a surprise. The Muslim Leage goons (with active British connivance) kicked out the Hindu/Sikh with their wanton and sudden killings. The sheer surprise and suddennes and ferociousness of the violence left the Hindus/Sikhs stunned and unable to react, which what the British wanted to begin with.

The city real estate was basically 90% Hindu/Sikh. This was the most egregious act.

Years later our own Kuldip Nayyar met with Radcliffe in a London Flat. Nayyar asked Radcliffe that Muslims thought he was unfair. Radcliffe slipped, and blurted out that he had given Lahore to them, how could they think of me as anti-Muslim. The implication was simple: Lahore really should not have gone to Pakistan, the British had to go the extra mile to give it to them. For this, they had to purchase the acquiscence of Nehru & Gandhi (which they got in abundance).

[surinder]

Lahore (I visited lahore in 2005) has lots of old buildings with visible non-muslim signs (these buildings are so pretty and good that even they didn't wanted to destroy them) like OM, IK OMKAR, etc in hindi/punjab all over the city. Big huge mensions. Lahore city does not have its cosmo culture at all (cosmo culture was created by Ranjit Singh in 1799 when he had British, French, American, Punjabis, UPites, Bengalis, and rest of Indians) Lahore is known as a "Cosmopolitian" city in Punjabi folklore but today's reality is opposite!!

SBajwa,

Can you comment on what you saw in Lahore? How does the city look? What does it resemble?

Does it really measure up to the Punjabi phrases of "Jeenay Lhore nahin vekhya, oh jammya hee nahin", or "Lhore Lhore aaei"? Are they exaggerations?

I hear contradictory reports from people.

[surinder]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh among non-muslims is a hero off course but not that much of a hero as Akali Phula Singh or Hari Singh nalwa (both Ranjit Singh's generals).

...

Ranjit Singh protected the mosques of the muslims and participated in EID, Muharram and other festivals!

Khalsa army's commander for Artillery division was always a Muslim (Mian Ghausa, etc) as Ranjit Singh dictated.

Ranjit Singh did nothing whatsoever at all to avenge the murders, raping, conversion of millions of people of Punjab, Kashmir and rest of India against Muslims or Mughals is reason to believe that he was more of a politician who wanted to "rule" and ruled for 50 years (before british took over after his death) by keeping all parties happy!!

...

So!! Maharaja Ranjit Singh is a hero because he chose to give free run to people like Nalwa and Akali Phula Singh so that they can take the battle to the real Jihadis as oppose to Pakjabis!!

SBajwa,

First and foremost I am glad someone here on BRF has criticized Maharaja Ranjit Singh. I think a more realistic appraisal is necessary. We do not deify him beyond reason. Of course, the British literature of that time is absolutely gutter in terms of trying to pillory him (using that would, non sense.)

Secondly, critizing MRS also gives us a chance to debate this great man. Maybe discover more negatives, and maybe also politics.

With this compliment to you out of the way, let me state that I disagree with you on your key arguments in this post.


MRS and the Khalsa Raaj was contrained tremendously at dealing with the Muslims. There was the Dharmic constraint: Our dharma denies us the chance to repay the Islamist in the same coin. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was only one or two generations removed the the 10th Guru. He could not have gone out and done a reverse Islam on the Muslims. Note that Shiva Ji did not do that either. He too was constrained.

Secondly, Ranjit Singh ruled an empire where Sikhs/Hindus were a tiny minorty in the empire. These were practical limits.

Given that, Ranjit Singh and the Khalsa Raaj took on every chance to force the Muaslims to yield and surrender. Often, the Khalsa insisted on humiliating & cowing the Muslims, most importantly to show that their rule can be broken and they themselves can also be forced to be slaves. In Pakistan, I am told, an obstinate person who forces his will on others is still called "Sikha Shahi".

The first act of his army, after liberating any area from Musllim rule, was to ban cow slaughter. Let us not forget, the first and probably the last time anyone in India ever banned the Azaan was Maharaja Ranjit Singh. It was never done before, and has never been done since. I doubt it will ever happen again. That is no mean feat in the history of Islaam in India. And add to the fact that this was done right at the door step of the Afghan empire, in a Muslim majority empire, which only a few years back was Muslim ruled for 8 centuries.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh also destroyed a few mosques in Kashmir that were built on Hindu temples. The Kashmiri Brahmins themselves stopped the Khalsa army from blowing a few mosques. Talking of Kashmir, the Khalsa's second step (after banning cow slaughter) was to close down and curtail use of many Mosques. Also banning the azaan.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh also showed that you can build back what was destroyed by the Turks. He donated gold to the Vishwanath Temple in Banaras (a plaque there still states that). His army got back the gates of Somnath temple from Ghazni (they are the doors of the Golden Temple).

In India marrying your daughters to Muslims is considered disgraceful; but marrying Muslims girls is a sign of conquest over them. So his marrying Muslim women is exactly the type of dominance that Muslims detested.

You bring the interesting fact of his artillary commanded by Muslims general. The Sikh soldiers, for whatever reason, were fond of joining the cavalry and other regiments. They hated artillery. These empty posts went to the Punjabi Muslims. Incidentally, the artillary of marathas was also commanded by muslims. (Sikhs also hated joining the police, which then went to the Punjabi Muslims. That is why at the time of independence, most police in Punjab was muslim.)

Furthermore, a man is simply not known by his own actions. He is also known by the actions of men he enables. It requires talent to recognize talent. For him to have recognize the talents of Nalwa, Phula Singh, and scores of brave men is also a testament to him.

I would consider Ranjit Singh to have given one of the most memorable and crushing defeats to to the Turks in India.

(We can discuss his flaws in a separate thread.)